Bewildered Non-Party People

Published:Za PravduNo. 3, October 4, 1913.

      Signed:Kar—ov.

      Published according to theZa Pravdutext.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1977,

      Moscow,Volume 19,

      pages436-438.Translated:The Late George HannaTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Oneof the most widespread and unhealthy symptoms of our public life is
the contempt (if not open hostility) that is displayed towards adherence to
a party.

Itis characteristic of political free lances, political adventurers
and political Manilovs to repudiate party affiliations and to talk
pompously about party “bigotry”, “dogmatism”, intolerance, and so on,
and so forth. As a matter of fact, the use of such expressions merely
reflects the ridiculous and paltry conceit or self-justification of
intellectuals who are shut off from the masses and feel compelled to cover
up their feebleness. Serious politics can only be promoted by themasses; non-party masses that do not follow the lead of a strong
party are, however, disunited, ignorant masses, with out staying power,
prone to become a plaything in the hands of adroit politicians, who always
emerge “opportunely” from the ranks of the ruling classes to take
advantage of “favourable” circumstances.

Russiais one of the most petty-bourgeois countries in the world and is
least accustomed to free political activities. This, and this alone,
explains the contempt that is so widespread in this country for adherence
to a party. One of the tasks of class-conscious workers in Russia (and one
of the great historical services they must render) is to wage a systematic
and persevering struggle against this attitude.

Thefollowing is one of the latest examples of the smug
non-partisanship that reigns among thenear-Partyintellectuals.

Theworkers have organised the collection of funds for working-class
newspapers on an extensive scale. It is not difficult to understand that
when the masses have consciouslydecided for themselveswhichnewspaper to assist and whichtrendto support, such collectionsteachthem
ideologically sound and principled politics.

Theliquidators, who so often descend to non-party politics, have
launched their notorious campaign for thecollections to be shared
equally. In this they were prompted solely by the desire to cover up
their own weakness, and in their haste they did not have time to think and
realise that the principle underlying such a campaign is precisely the
principle ofnon-partisanship.

Theywere immediately exposed by the real state of affairs. Russian
petty-bourgeois societymade the liquidators’ slogan its own:
share and share alike with everybody, with the liquidators and with the
Narodniks!

Whentheir political gamble is exposed, these non-party people who have
renounced the Marxist past for the sake of visions of something as
“broad” as it is unprincipled, begin to twist and turn. G. R., in No. 24
of the liquidators’ newspaper, assures us that the liquidators are not at
all in favour of uniting with the Narodniks, and alleges that such union
has been “systematically advocated” by the Marxists.

Acruder distortion of the truth could scarcely be imagined. If
G. R. and Co. were not non-party, if they did not treat thehistoryof Marxism like philistines, they would know that it wasonlydue to the Marxists (supporters ofPravda) that the
question of the attitude the workers should adopt to the various parties
wassettledquite officially more than six years
				 ago.[1]The Marxists alone gave a precise definition of theclassbasis ofallthe important parties in Russia; the liquidators have never
been able to do this. The Marxists alone of all the parties in Russia,six yearsago, defined the exact nature of the various “trends”
and the attitude that should be adopted towards them in place of a chaotic,
unprincipled attitude (“as circumstances demand”) towards individual
parties.

Sincethen, events have brilliantly confirmed the correctness of this
definition in the most unquestionable manner.

Thedefinition states clearly and precisely that the Narodniks are
petty-bourgeois democrats with whom “jointaction” is possible only against reaction and against liberalism.

Now,G. R. and Co., in asserting that they are opposed to uniting with
the Narodniks, want to wriggle out of it by saying: “We are in favour of
the collections being shared equally between thetwonewspapers
when ‘mass collections’ are made, but we are opposed to this when
collections are made ‘among groups of politically conscious supporters’!”
(SeeNovaya Rabochaya GazetaNo. 24.)

Inthe first place, it has already been proved by actual experience
that a non-party plan emerges from your advocacy of share and share
alike. This is a fact. This very issue, No. 24, contains a resolution
adopted by one workers’ group which says:equally with the Narodniks,
too. As is always the case with them, our non-partisans or
independents, find themselves in the wrong box!

Inthe second place, can a group of politically conscious supporters be
called such if it is unable to enlighten the masses? No, gentlemen,
non-partisans, it cannot! Politically conscious supporters will say to the
masses—let everybody contribute, let everybody unite, buttry,
in doing so,to distinguishthe trends of the different
newspapers!

Tocontribute and say “share and share alike” means being non-party,
indifferent and not politically conscious. To contribute and say, “for
such and such a trend”, means being politically conscious, and taking
part consciously in acommonaction.

G.R.distorts this political ABC. The result is that G. R. and Co.,
the liquidators, while asserting that they are opposed to uniting with the
Narodniks, areactuallycontinuing their policy of uniting with
them on anon-partybasis; they are continuing anon-partypolicy extremely harmful to the workers, one which
cannot be tolerated.

Workerdemocrats have more than once offered determined resistance to
the advocacy of non-partisanship and must do so again in the future, for it
dulls the political consciousness of the workers and makes it easier for
all sorts of frauds to be perpetrated upon them.

[1]Seepresent edition, Vol. 12, pp. 136–38.—Ed.